The May 6 primary split - Surprise, yet no surprise

Although Real Clear Politics showed Hillary with an averaged 5 point lead over Barack in Indiana, Hillary actually won with a 2 point lead. In contrast, Hillary lost to Barack in NC with a 14 point deficit. While we saw the gap closing in both states in the days leading up to the primaries, the only surprise is that there was a double digit gap between Hillary and Barack in NC. The Real Clear Politics average was 8 points with only 2 out of 7 polls showing double digits.

The real question is why was Hillary able to close the gap for a win in Indiana, but not in North Carolina? Although NC has a large technology sector, there is also an abundance of blue collar workers. With the negative comments that Barack made about blue collar workers in PA, it surprises me that they still sided with him in NC. Hillary also tends to pick up the Hispanic vote and NC has a substantial Hispanic population.

Let's take a look at some data for both NC and IN:

NC Hispanic population percentage as of 2006: 6.7%
NC African American population percentage as of 2006: 21.7%
NC Caucasian (not Hispanic) population percentage as of 2006: 67.9%

IN Hispanic population percentage as of 2006: 4.8%
IN African American population percentage as of 2006: 8.9%
IN Caucasian (not Hispanic) population percentage as of 2006: 83.9%

For comparison, let's also look at PA:

PA Hispanic population percentage as of 2006: 4.2%
PA African American population percentage as of 2006: 10.7%
PA Caucasian (not Hispanic) population percentage as of 2006: 82.1%

Looking at this data it seems to become clear how Hillary was able to win IN and PA, but not NC. Looking at the data, it might not be mere coincidence that the difference in African American population (roughly 13%) between IN and NC accounts for the 14 point lead that Barack acquired in NC. Thus, although NC does have a slightly higher Hispanic population than IN and PA, it was not enough to overcome the African American vote.

The question now is should Hillary continue the nomination contest with Barack? Although I am sure that the superdelegates will put pressure on Hillary to drop out, I strongly feel that she should continue. Why? Howard Dean and the DNC still have yet to decide the fate of MI and FL. Hillary won both states with large margins in the initial primaries. Therefore, even if MI and FL have to redo their primaries, I think Hillary has a good shot at winning again. Yes, a do-over could create a real mess. I really don't like the idea. However, Barack and the African American population would probably complain if this were not done. So, I say let them do it. Barack will still lose in both states. I am confident of that. Had Howard Dean and the DNC resolved the FL/MI primaries issue in February or March, Hillary might have had more momentum at this point. However, I still think she could win the nomination by a razor thin lead by the time of the Democratic National Convention.

Howard Dean - Barack Obama's Secret Weapon

As everyone knows by now, Hillary won in PA. Thus, I am sure that all Hillary supporters are wondering if she has the momentum to win the nomination. In essence, it's up to Howard Dean.

It's a darn shame that I have to beat a dead horse, but this horse (though dead) deserves a good beating! All Hillary supporters need to do is read the transcript of this past Sunday's Meet The Press and they'll agree. Here's the meat of the interview:

"Michigan and Florida. There is a report--reports that the Democratic National Committee is having a meeting on May 31st...

DR. DEAN: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...which may in fact say to Michigan and Florida, "Well, you broke the rules, you moved your primary dates up without permission, but we're going to give you half delegates, half your elected count, half your superdelegate count come, come convention time." Is that true?

DR. DEAN: Well, I don't know about the--what the Rules Committee's going to do. I have no idea what they're going to do. But here's the deal. First, you got to respect the voters. The voters of Michigan and Florida were not the people that screwed this all up, it was politicians. Secondly, you have to respect the candidates. They went in on a set of rules that everybody voted for, including Michigan and Florida, before they changed their mind, but--and so you can't really change the rules and alter the course of the race. And thirdly, you got to respect the 48 states that did respect the rules.

Here's why the rules are important. For the--this year, for the first time, we balanced the early primaries with ethnic and geographic diversity. We included a state from the South and a state from the West, because we think we can win there now. And we included states with significant numbers of minority groups who the Democrats can't win without, and those folks ought to be allowed to say early on who they think should be the president. Now along comes two states which steps on the process. You've got to deal with that in a fair way. So I don't know what the solution's going to be. The Rules Committee's going to start to work on that now as they prepare for the meeting at the end of May. But nobody will be satisfied with the outcome because nobody's going to get everything they want. What we strive is to be fair to the voters, fair to both campaigns, and fair to the other 48 states.

MR. RUSSERT: Former Governor Jim Blanchard of Michigan, who's a Clinton supporter, said the Democratic National Committee has handled the situation badly. "They have put their rules ahead of common sense, of electing a Democratic president, of voters in two major states. ... They're treating the rules like they're the U.S. Constitution or the Ten Commandments. They've lost their way."

DR. DEAN: Well, they were one of the two states out of the 50 that violated the rules. I'd kind of expect that from them.

MR. RUSSERT: But Michigan and Florida are swing states.

DR. DEAN: They're both very important states. That doesn't mean they're any more important than anybody else.

MR. RUSSERT: In fact, there were some meetings of delegates in Michigan, various conventions where Hillary Clinton is now lining up delegates, and, according to Congressman Blanchard, "We want to pick people who'll be loyal to Hillary, who would commit to her through multiple ballots." So Governor Blanchard of Michigan, former governor, is planning for, in effect, a multiple ballot convention.

DR. DEAN: Sure. I mean, I--look, everybody has a right to plan anything they want. My plan, as the chair of the DNC, is to try to get this resolved before we get to the convention. Because if you go into the convention divided, it's pretty likely you'll come out of the convention divided.

MR. RUSSERT: Without Michigan and Florida counting, as of now, people are saying, "Howard Dean should have handled this differently. He should have interceded and fixed this problem and not allowed us to come to a point where these two states feel dissed and it could hurt us in November."

DR. DEAN: Well, I mean, that--it wasn't my decision to make these changes. Florida and Michigan both voted for a set of rules, then they tried to push ahead of everybody else, and that makes it more difficult for everybody. We want to resolve this. This is not the voters' fault in Florida and Michigan. But the fact of the matter is that you have to--you cannot change the rules towards the end of the game just to advantage or disadvantage of a particular candidate. You can't do that.

MR. RUSSERT: But you decided not to seat the delegations, not count the primaries.

DR. DEAN: That's correct. Because they stepped on the minority groups and the small states in the South and the West that needed that time to have their primaries and have their early input.

Look, it's, it's--this is like having a, a line full of people waiting for something. If two of them jump the line and go to the front, it's not going to be long before you're going to have a riot. Don't forget, at the time these sanctions were passed by the Rules Committee, New Hampshire and Iowa were threatening to move into 2007. You've got to keep order, and that's part of my job is to keep order. It's understandable that the folks you call out because they think they're more important than everybody else are going to be upset about that. We did keep order, we do have an orderly process. I'll defend the process.

MR. RUSSERT: Will Michigan and Florida be seated?

DR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: In some way, shape or form.

DR. DEAN: In some way. I'm determined to make that happen. I can't--again, I can't, I can't speak for what the rules committee will do. They're 30 very independent-minded people. I can't speak for what the credentials committee at the convention will do. I believe Michigan and Florida should be seated in some way because it was their--their voters did not cause this problem. This was caused by a political problem, not the voters' problem.

MR. RUSSERT: Seated and their delegates will vote for the presidential nominee?

DR. DEAN: I, that's what I hope will happen.

MR. RUSSERT: The Democratic National Committee has been taking some television advertising out about John McCain, one out on the economy. You are now also going forward with an ad on Iraq. Let's watch that ad and come back and talk about it."

I can't help but be both amused and enraged by this comment by Dean:

"My plan, as the chair of the DNC, is to try to get this resolved before we get to the convention."

Yeah, roughly 2 months before the convention! This matter should have been resolved by February 29 in my humble opinion. Sadly, my opinion isn't worth the disc space it inhabits as far as the Democratic National Committee is concerned.

In reply, Tim Russert said, "[People are saying Howard Dean] should have interceded and fixed this problem and not allowed us to come to a point where these two states feel dissed and it could hurt us in November." I couldn't agree more.

Dean then has the audacity to say, "Well, I mean, that--it wasn't my decision to make these changes. Florida and Michigan both voted for a set of rules, then they tried to push ahead of everybody else, and that makes it more difficult for everybody. . . . But the fact of the matter is that you have to--you cannot change the rules towards the end of the game just to advantage or disadvantage of a particular candidate. You can't do that." The only person and/or entity that has waited until "the end of the game" is Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee!

Is this the work of an extremely ineffective leader for the Democratic National Committee or the work of Barack Obama's secret weapon? Unfortunately, I have no cold hard facts or material evidence to definitively say that Howard Dean is Barack Obama's secret weapon. Nevertheless, we must consider the circumstantial evidence:

1) FL and MI held their primaries early.

2) Howard Dean decided to not count those primaries.

3) Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee seem to have done everything than can to stall the solution to this issue.

Now, let's attempt to "read between the lines". First, we have 2 key states holding their primaries early. Did Howard Dean and/or other representatives of the Democratic National Committee secretly coerce the governors of FL and MI to hold their primaries early? Second, Dean strips FL and MI of their delegates as an initial reaction. This action gave Barack a significant advantage because Hillary won the primaries in both states. Third, the DNC has done nothing but stall any sort of solution to this dilemma. This decision, or lack thereof, has given Barack even more of an edge to win the Democratic nomination. Thus, I think that it is reasonable to conclude that Howard Dean quite possibly endorses Barack Obama. Unfortunately, it is also possible that a majority of other members of the DNC also support Barack Obama.

The real shame of it all is that the Democratic primaries are beginning to resemble the WWE. It's all a bunch of acting --at least on the part of Barack Obama, Howard Dean and the DNC-- and the "fight" is fixed. Is that to say that no-one gets hurt? No. There could be many casualties. Hillary Clinton might very well be one. The U.S. as a whole could be an even more important second casualty. This situation could also very well hurt Democrats for quite a long time. I'm no Democrat. However, I haven't been impressed by a Republican since Ronald Reagan.

Related post: Barack Obama's Secret Weapon Seeks Cash

Guns, Religion, Antipathy, and Swift Boats

In recent news, we have heard remarks from Barack Obama about guns, religion, and antipathy. We have also heard Hillary's and McCain's responses to these remarks as well as Barack's own elaboration upon said remarks. Before I go into detail about who said what and my opinion of the situation, I'd like to offer my stance on these issues.

Now that Charlton Heston is dead, I can finally admit that I am against everyone and their brother owning guns. No ordinary citizen should be able to purchase semi-automatic or automatic weapons. These weapons should only be available to the military and law enforcement. Furthermore, I feel that no-one with a criminal record that includes convictions for violence should be able to own a gun. In addition, anyone with psychological issues should be thoroughly tested by more than one psychologist before being allowed to purchase a gun. If these psychologists have any doubt at all as to whether or not someone with psychological issues is capable of violence, that person should be forbidden to own a gun.

By blood, I am Jewish. Some of you might stop reading due to that fact. However, I can tell you that you are going to miss out on a revelation if you do. I respect people of all religions. Even Islam. That said, there are extremists in all religions. This includes, but is not limited to, Jews, Methodists, Protestants, Catholics, and Buddhists. Extremism is one of the many factors I had considered when I chose not to participate in any organized religion. Do I believe in God? In short, I hope God exists. However, the long answer to that question would occupy several posts in this blog.

I certainly cannot speak for others when it comes to antipathy. Nevertheless, I can say that I am not antipathetic. At least not when it comes to the haves versus the have nots. Unlike many people, especially U.S. citizens, I am not strongly motivated by money. I am motivated more by intangibles. Compassion, enthusiasm, generosity, compliments, passion, etc. will keep me happier than all the money in the world. I can certainly empathize with the unemployed people out there. In the past 4 years, I've been unemployed about 40% of the time. On the "have" end, I appreciate what people such as Bill Gates are giving back to society. That said, for every "Bill Gates" there are 3 or 4 wealthy people who are detriments to society. Alas, that is a topic for another post.

Barack on 'Bitter Pennsylvanians' . . . "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. " Let's break this quote down. First, I would like to address the alleged 25 year absence of jobs. I strongly disagree with this. Sure, the steel industry might have dwindled, but both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton helped create thousands of jobs. The Reagan years brought about a lot of military jobs. While Bill Clinton did scale back the military, he both balanced the budget and gave private industry a big boost. Remember the internet boom? Sure, the original boom expanded so quickly that it could not sustain itself by about the year 2000. Nevertheless, the internet has continued to grow exponentially since the 2000 "correction". Look at Google, eBay, FaceBook, and Yahoo just to name a few. My point is that the jobs were there. The people just needed to be "reskilled" for the jobs that were available. Second, I feel that any bitterness is self induced by people who don't adapt. As for people clinging to guns, religion, and/or antipathy, these are the extremists. Extreme gun activists will complain about gun issues regardless of the economy. Obsessively religious people will cling harder to religion during hard times. People with an aversion toward people of other races, religions, or income brackets will be especially antipathetic during a recession. These are specific types of people. You can't make a generalization and say that everyone in Anytown, PA has one or more of these attributes. It's simply not true. Third, there is a good reason for anti-immigrant sentiment, especially as pertains to illegal immigrants, regardless of the economy. Illegal immigrants will tend to hurt our economy because they are taking jobs away from U.S. citizens. Trade is a complex animal and best left for another post.

More to come . . .

Moveon.org Questions Hillary Clinton's Wealthy Campaign Financers

Moveon.org, a very questionable organization, has the audacity to accuse some of Clinton's wealthier supporters of bullying elected leaders. Well, here is what Moveon.org calls bullying:

"Twenty of Clinton's major donors sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday that suggested they might rethink their support for the party's congressional efforts this cycle if Pelosi did not alter her publicly stated view that superdelegates should support the party's pledged delegate leader -- a position that would be fatal to Clinton's presidential bid."

Meanwhile . . .

"Her [Hillary Clinton's] supporters have recently argued with their checkbooks that superdelegates should vote their conscience at the Democratic National Convention in August."

Personally, I agree with Hillary's supporters. I think that the superdelegates should vote their conscience. That's what normal citizens of the U.S. do. Why should superdelegates vote for one candidate just because he/she has more votes than the other? They should vote for whomever they think is the best candidate. Moveon.rog claims, "It's the worst kind of insider politics -- billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters." No, they're not bullying them. They're simply bribing the elected leaders to do the right thing because they wouldn't necessarily do it otherwise. That's the way I see it. Otherwise, superdelegates might just jump on the "Obama's ahead" bandwagon and take the position that they might was well vote for him. This completely disregards one's conscience because they're being swayed to vote for someone just because he has a slight lead. While I'll admit that superdelegates should not have to be bribed into doing the right thing (i.e. voting their conscience), it is better to do that than allow them to feel the pressure of the Democratic Party to vote for a candidate just because he has a slight lead.

Here's what I think . . . . I think Moveon.org and other Obama supporters are creating a distraction to keep people from questioning where Barack's campaign funds are coming from. Barack is currently over $20 million ahead of Hillary in gross campaign funding. Furthermore, Barack currently has 3 times the cash on hand as Hillary. Barack wants to know where Hillary's money is coming from. I, and most likely many others, would like to know where Barack's money is coming from.

Let's take a look:

First entry here from campaign funding report for March 2008:

NO EMPLOYER WAS SUPPLIED $25,498,555.80 (anonymous donations)

Probably more than one source, but that's still a huge hunk of change! And I'm willing to bet that a lot of these "No employer was supplied" funds came from big oil, pharmaceutical companies, big tobacco, etc.

Other sizable donors include:

NOT EMPLOYED - $6,667,752.83 (anonymous donations)
UNEMPLOYED - $41,799.44 (anonymous donations)

Not employed? What? Are we talking retired billionaires?

INFORMATION REQUESTED - $467,598.67 (anonymous donations)

SELF EMPLOYED - $4,958,065.42 (more anonymous donations)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR - over $32,000
WATTS LAW FIRM - over $20,000
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - over $20,000
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON - over $30,000
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA - over $20,000
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA - over $20,000
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO - over $31,000
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - over $40,000
UBS - over $25,000
SUSMAN GODFREY - over $25,000
STANFORD UNIVERSITY - over $25,000
SIDLEY & AUSTIN - over $20,000
NORTHWESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY - about $20,000
NA - over $36,000 (I assume this means "not applicable"; more anonymous donations)
MORGAN STANLEY - over $37,000
MICROSOFT - over $54,000
LEHMAN BROTHERS - over $25,000
LATHAM & WATKINS - over $28,000
KIRKLAND & ELLIS - over $20,000
JONES DAY - over $22,000
IBM - over $46,000
HARVARD UNIVERSITY - over $50,000
GOOGLE - over $60,000
GOLDMAN SACHS - over $45,000
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER - over $20,000
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY - over $25,000
GENERAL ELECTRIC - over $20,000
FREELANCE - over $23,000 (anonymous donation?)
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - over $36,000
CITIGROUP - over $30,000
AT&T - over $22,000

Although I went through the entire list and selected companies/organizations who donated at least $20,000, it's the huge anonymous donations that are my real concern. If you take the time to go here and scroll through the thousands of contributors, you will notice some small figures from pharmaceutical companies and such. However, I'm willing to bet that big oil, pharmaceutical companies, big tobacco, Fortune 500 corporations, and other companies with deep pockets made anonymous donations too.

In total, Barack received $37,692,772.16. In fairness, I'll say that Hillary received about $19,176,609.62 in anonymous donations. Nevertheless, she never professed to be running a clean campaign free of lobbyists, etc.

Why did I go through all of this trouble? I wanted to show you that Barack has received millions of dollars from unnamed sources. He claims to be running a clean campaign and not to receive funds from lobbyists, etc. If this is the case, why do his sources feel the need to hide if they are not questionable? While there might be valid reasons for some sources to hide their identity, it still seems very suspicious that Barack has received such large sums of money from these sources.

Michigan Re-Vote: Deal or No Deal?

I don't know about Michigan, but I say "no deal!" as long as re-vote is on the table. You already know my opinion on MI and FL holding their primaries early. Therefore, I feel that Hillary won in MI fair and square. The MI delegates should be awarded to her.

Barack has already stated that he does not want a re-vote in MI. Although my reasons for not wanting a re-vote differ from his, I agree on that. I don't understand why Hillary apparently wants a re-vote. Perhaps it is because awarding her the MI delegates is not on the table right now as far as the DNC is concerned. Hey, DNC! If you want to give MI and FL a slap on the wrist, do the honorable thing and award half the delegates to Hillary since she won, by default, in both states.

Stripping MI and FL of their delegates is a bit extreme considering the only thing they did wrong was hold their primaries a little early. If they had been caught red handed "fixing" the vote, I could understand that punishment. Come on DNC! Don't give a felony sentence for a misdemeanor crime! Get off your high horse and do the right thing!

This just in:

Obama campaign calls 50-50 split of Michigan delegates fair

Clinton rejects 50-50 delegate split

Need I comment on this? Of course Barack thinks a split is fair: 1) he's got a lead on Hillary and 2) he took his name off the ballot. On the other hand, I can certainly understand why Hillary doesn't go for the split. She already won in MI and FL by default. Like I said, I feel that the DNC needs to do the right thing and award Hillary (and only Hillary) 50% of the delegates from both MI and FL. That is fair.

Barack - Look Before You Leap

I read this article on npr.org and thought to myself, "man, my next post is going to practically write itself." After having his name withdrawn from the ballots in MI, Barack is stating that "[Counting the primary results in MI and FL] wouldn't be fair — and do-overs in [Michigan] and in Florida wouldn't be realistic." As you might have read here, I agree with Barack's statement that do-overs would not be realistic. However, his whining because he hastily removed his name from the ballots in MI is like listening to a 5 year old cry out, "that's not fair!" Well, Barack, maybe next time you won't make such hasty decisions. Though I am just a lowly U.S. citizen, I strongly feel that the primary results in MI and FL should count. After all, whose fault is it that Hillary's going to win those states by default? Yours, Mr Obama. Nevertheless, Barack is incessantly whining, "We were told that these contests would not count," he tells Steve Inskeep. "Sen. Clinton agreed. Our [he means 'my'] name was taken off the ballot in Michigan, and in Florida we did no campaigning. Now, if people think that that is a normal democratic way of running an election, then that's not the America that I know." You're right, Barack, it's not normal for someone, in a close race, to have their name removed from the ballot and not campaign as much as possible. Hillary campaigned in FL. So, again, that's your fault Mr. Obama. I suggest that you stop your whining and get busy with your campaign. If the DNC decides that FL and MI do count, you might lose anyway. However, at least you'd be able to say that you gave it your all.

Hillary - One piece of advice for you

If I could offer Hillary Clinton one piece of advice, it would be to run a positive campaign. She was holding strong in public favor and the polls until she started to make negative comments about Obama. Let the media, voters, etc. do that. Concentrate on the issues. Elaborate on your solutions to the issues. Sure, you can make jokes and tell amusing anecdotes to keep voters' attention, but please try to run a positive campaign. Bashing the other candidate or other party is not the best way to influence voters. Pointing out poor political decisions is fine as long as you explain how you would have done it differently. However, I and (I'm sure) many other voters would appreciate you leaving the dirt and skeleton finding to the media.

MI and FL - Is there a valid reason to "punish" them?

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean had this to say about FL and MI on March 5. Although I understand that there are rules and that FL and MI allegedly agreed on dates 18 months ago, I feel that FL and MI should have been allowed to change those dates with proper notice and documentation. I can understand FL and MI getting a slap on the wrist for not following proper channels. However, I don't think that their delegates should be omitted from the primaries process. Nor do I think there should be a series of hoops to jump through to potentially get reinstated.

Let's look at the big picture for a moment. FL and MI held their primaries about 1.5 months early. It was still well into 2008. It's not like they held the primaries for the 2008 election in 2006 or 2007. That would be inexcusable and omitting them at that point would be more justified. The media seemed to make a big deal of FL and MI holding their primaries before Super Tuesday (the first Tuesday after the Superbowl). I fail to see the issue. Sure, quite a few states held their primaries on Super Tuesday, but holding primaries before or after Super Tuesday seems quite arbitrary to me. It shouldn't be a big deal.

Getting back to the mess at hand, former DNC Chairman Don Fowler says "It'll be a hellacious battle" to allow a "do-over" for FL and MI. A do-over? Why? That's like asking the NFL to redo the Superbowl assuming that they held it a week before they should have held it. I think that the votes that have already been collected should count. In my opinion, a "do-over" is just going to lead to another "hanging chad"-like fiasco.

I say that voters should take a stand and tell the DNC to stand down and let the delegates assignments from the initial votes in FL and MI count.

Why I think a Clinton-Obama ticket could spell disaster

Lately, there have comments from both Bill and Hillary suggesting the possible uniting of Hillary and Barack on one ticket. I am not so sure that this is a great idea. I acknowledge the fact that there could be widespread rioting if Hillary were to win the primary and not take on Barack as vice president. Why? Because many African Americans could feel that Barack was jipped or given the cold shoulder given that it is such a close race. Nevertheless, I think that Hillary leaving Barack out of the picture could be better in the long run. After all, he could always run again in 4 or 8 years. True, Hillary and Obama agree on many issues. However, agreeing is not enough. How the solutions to the issues are implemented is also very important. Being that Hillary does have much more experience than Barack, I feel that she would better implement solutions to many of the issues.

Experience aside, if Hillary and Barack do unite before there is a clear winner in the primaries, who's going to be on top? All jokes aside, how are we going to determine who gets to be president and who gets to be vice president? Flip a coin? Go by the incomplete primary results? Either way, it could be a disaster even though they agree on many issues. Being that they have been rivals thus far, it might be hard for them to work effectively together; especially having to work that close together. That said, an interesting alternative might be for either Hillary or Obama to end up as a cabinet member. In this manner, they might be able to advise each other without stepping on the other's toes.

Despite Hillary's loss in Wyoming today, she won 2 key states earlier this week. Most candidates who have not won TX and OH do not get to be president. Furthermore, Hillary is the projected winner, according to polls, in Pennsylvania. So, this race to the primaries seems far from over for Hillary. I would just caution against making hasty decisions that one might regret in the long run.

In closing, yes, it's going to be a close race. Should the runner up get a high ranking position in the presidential inner circle? Sure. However, I would hesitate to say that either would make an effective vice president for the other.

Hillary Clinton - Why She's My First Choice

Let's start in 1974. Hillary was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff during the Watergate Scandal. Thanks, in part, to her research President Richard Nixon was forced to resign from office for doing that same thing that President George W. Bush would do 30 years later; only President Nixon did it on a much smaller scale. Not long after that, Hillary decided to move to Arkansas with Bill despite the fact that she had better job prospects in DC. In my opinion, a very respectable choice to put the idea of starting a family before political ambitions. Throughout the 70's, Hillary did pro bono work in child advocacy. A very respectable area of law. In 1979, she was first woman to be made a full partner of Rose Law Firm.

From 1982 to 1992, Hillary was the chair of the Arkansas Education Standards committee and successfully fought for state standards for curriculum and classroom size. She was named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America by the National Law Journal in 1988 and 1991. Hillary also served on boards for non profit organizations such as Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services and the Children's Defense Fund. Therefore, Hillary got quite a bit of legislative experience throughout the 80's and early 90's.

From 1993 through 2000, Hillary played a major role as First Lady of the United States. She was a quite active advisor to her husband during his presidency. Throughout Bill's presidency, Hillary was the chair of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform. Although she was unsuccessful in bringing about universal health care, I very much respect her efforts as I believe that getting equal (i.e. no disparity between the quality of health care a low income person receives versus that of a wealthy person) health care for a reasonable price is a right and not a privilege.

During her time as a U.S Senator for the state of New York, Hillary consistently voted for bipartisan campaign reform. She also voted for regulations on lobbying and donations. In 2003, Hillary voted against a congressional pay raise amendment. In 2007, she voted on legislation to bar immigrants with certain criminal histories. Also in 2007, Hillary voted for an Iraq troop reduction and an amendment thereof. She voted for alternative energy subsidies in June 2007. I am a strong proponent of stem cell research as I believe that it will help save thousands if not millions lives in the years to come. Therefore, I am proud to say that Hillary voted for the Stem Cell Research Act of 2007.

With her years of experience and her passion to get things done, I believe that Hillary makes a great presidential candidate. Nobody is perfect. although I was definitely against the Iraq war, I cannot wholly blame her for supporting it at first due to the bad information that she and everyone else was given. The fact that Barack Obama did not support the war doesn't hold much relevance when put into the context that he was a representative in the Illinois Senate at the time the Iraq war had been declared. Therefore, he had little to no influence as to what was decided on the federal level. I feel that Hillary is a strong willed, passionate person who will not back down on what she believes is right. The fact that she can relate to all sorts of people in different areas of the country is a good thing in my eyes, but the media and other sources like to make you think otherwise. I believe that Hillary will pick an effective vice president who will not be overbearing like Dick Cheney has been. Furthermore, I believe that her cabinet members will stick with her rather than resigning like several of GWBs cabinet members have because they lost respect for the him.

In closing, Hillary is my first choice for president because I feel that she has the experience, passion, compassion, and will to get things done and get them done right. Has she made mistakes in the past? Yes, but everyone does. Hillary is an intelligent woman and I believe that she would take action to correct any mistakes she makes; which is more than can be said about our current president.

Most of the information that I have provided here can be verified at the following sites:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/hc42.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=55463

Let's end on a lighter note. After all, I like Jack Nicholson.